留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

乳腺癌新辅助化疗前后ER、PR、Her-2和Ki-67的变化与化疗疗效的关系分析

李阳 李玉梅 邓军

李阳, 李玉梅, 邓军. 乳腺癌新辅助化疗前后ER、PR、Her-2和Ki-67的变化与化疗疗效的关系分析[J]. 中华全科医学, 2024, 22(9): 1500-1503. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.003668
引用本文: 李阳, 李玉梅, 邓军. 乳腺癌新辅助化疗前后ER、PR、Her-2和Ki-67的变化与化疗疗效的关系分析[J]. 中华全科医学, 2024, 22(9): 1500-1503. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.003668
LI Yang, LI Yumei, DENG Jun. Relationship between the changes of ER, PR, Her-2 and Ki-67 before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of General Practice, 2024, 22(9): 1500-1503. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.003668
Citation: LI Yang, LI Yumei, DENG Jun. Relationship between the changes of ER, PR, Her-2 and Ki-67 before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of General Practice, 2024, 22(9): 1500-1503. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.003668

乳腺癌新辅助化疗前后ER、PR、Her-2和Ki-67的变化与化疗疗效的关系分析

doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.003668
基金项目: 

安徽省教育厅自然科学基金重点项目 KJ2021A0703

详细信息
    通讯作者:

    邓军,E-mail:1260808850@qq.com

  • 中图分类号: R737.9 R730.53

Relationship between the changes of ER, PR, Her-2 and Ki-67 before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer

  • 摘要:   目的  探讨乳腺癌患者在新辅助化疗(NAC)前后雌激素受体(ER)、孕激素受体(PR)、人类表皮生长因子受体2(Her-2)和增殖相关抗原(Ki-67)的变化与新辅助疗效相关性。  方法  收集2020年1月1日—2021年12月31日于蚌埠医科大学附属第一医院接受新辅助化疗的100例乳腺癌患者的资料,最终有80例患者纳入研究。NAC方案采用蒽环类联合紫杉类方案,Her-2阳性型患者NAC方案为多西他赛+卡铂+曲妥珠单抗+帕妥珠单抗(TCbHP)。NAC结束后所有患者均行乳腺癌手术治疗,对术后肿瘤残留样本进行免疫组织化学检测,并记录相关指标的表达变化。根据Miller-Payne系统分级及术后病理结果,将患者分为病理完全缓解组(pCR)和非病理完全缓解组(non-pCR)。采用χ2检验和多因素logistic回归模型分析non-pCR组ER、PR、Her-2以及Ki-67在化疗前后的表达差异,并分析分子的表达变化是否与患者疗效相关。  结果  在NAC前后ER、PR、Her-2和Ki-67变化率分别为2.50%、7.50%、10.00%和40.00%。NAC前后Ki-67(P=0.011)表达变化比较差异有统计学意义,而ER(P=0.737)、PR(P=0.581)、Her-2(P=0.108)表达变化比较差异均无统计学意义。此外,多因素分析表明,Ki-67高表达是新辅助化疗临床疗效的独立预测因子(P<0.05)。  结论  NAC治疗可能会影响Ki-67表达水平,而ER、PR和Her-2未发生明显变化。NAC后Ki-67表达水平降低的患者可能有更好的疗效。

     

  • 表  1  80例乳腺癌患者临床病理资料

    Table  1.   Clinicopathological data of 80 patients with breast cancer

    项目 例数(%) 项目 例数(%)
    年龄 疗效评价
      ≤35岁 1(1.25)   部分缓解 60(75.00)
      >35岁 79(98.75)   病情稳定 20(25.00)
    分子分型   疾病进展 0
      Luminal A型 2(2.50) ER
      Luminal B型 51(63.75)   阳性 56(70.00)
      Her-2型 18(22.50)   阴性 24(30.00)
      三阴型 9(11.25) PR
    化疗方案   阳性 36(45.00)
      TEC 60(75.00)   阴性 44(55.00)
      TCbHP 20(25.00) Her-2
    手术方式   阳性 20(25.00)
      改良根治术 70(87.50)   阴性 60(75.00)
      保乳术 5(6.25) Ki-67
      改良根治术+乳房重建整形术 5(6.25)   高表达 56(70.00)
      低表达 24(30.00)
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  2  NAC对ER、PR、Her-2和Ki-67的影响

    Table  2.   Effects of NAC on ER, PR, Her-2, and Ki-67

    分子标志物 阳性→阴性(例) 阴性→阳性(例) 变化(例) 不变(例) 改变率(%)
    ER 2 2 4 76 2.50
    PR 2 4 6 74 7.50
    Her2 3 5 8 72 10.00
    Ki-67 28a 4b 32 48 40.00
    注:a为高表达→低表达,b为低表达→高表达。
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  3  ER、PR、Her-2和Ki-67的变化情况(例)

    Table  3.   Changes in ER, PR, Her-2, and Ki-67(cases)

    分子标志物 表达情况 NAC前后不变 NAC前后改变 χ2 P
    ER 阳性 54 2 1.210 0.737
    阴性 22 2
    PR 阳性 34 2 2.850 0.581
    阴性 40 4
    Her-2 阳性 17 3 2.500 0.108
    阴性 55 5
    Ki-67 高表达 28 28 9.600 0.011
    低表达 20 4
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  4  变量赋值情况

    Table  4.   Variable assignment

    变量 赋值方法
    ER 阳性to阳性=(0, 0, 0),阳性to阴性=(1, 0, 0),阴性to阳性=(0, 1, 0),阴性to阴性=(0, 0, 1);以阳性to阳性为参照。
    PR 阳性to阳性=(0, 0, 0),阳性to阴性=(1, 0, 0),阴性to阳性=(0, 1, 0),阴性to阴性=(0, 0, 1);以阳性to阳性为参照。
    Her-2 阳性to阳性=(0, 0, 0),阳性to阴性=(1, 0, 0),阴性to阳性=(0, 1, 0),阴性to阴性=(0, 0, 1);以阳性to阳性=(0, 0, 0)为参照。
    Ki-67 Ki-67<30%=1,Ki-67≥30%=2
    疗效 部分缓解=0,病情稳定=1
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  5  ER、PR、Her-2和Ki-67与疾病控制率的logistic回归分析

    Table  5.   Logistic regression analysis of ER, PR, Her-2, Ki-67, and disease control rate

    变量 B SE Waldχ2 P OR 95% CI
    ER(阳性to阴性) -1.529 1.566 0.953 0.329 0.217 0.010~4.669
    ER(阴性to阳性) -0.825 0.993 0.690 0.406 0.438 0.063~3.069
    ER(阴性to阴性) -1.864 1.279 0.350 0.534 0.512 0.075~2.054
    PR(阳性to阴性) 1.724 1.572 1.203 0.273 5.606 0.258~121.998
    PR(阴性to阳性) 0.664 1.100 0.365 0.546 1.943 0.225~16.770
    PR(阴性to阴性) -1.803 1.095 0.411 0.650 0.354 0.201~13.110
    Her-2(阳性to阴性) -2.911 1.890 2.373 0.123 0.054 0.001~2.209
    Her-2(阴性to阳性) -3.431 1.901 3.258 0.071 0.032 0.001~1.343
    Her-2(阴性to阴性) -1.514 2.438 0.386 0.535 0.220 0.002~26.175
    Ki-67 2.638 1.150 5.260 0.022 13.988 1.468~133.310
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] NIKYAR N, TEGNELIUS E, VALACHIS A. Adjuvant locoregional radiation therapy in breast cancer patients with pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol, 2022, 33: 45-52.
    [2] SHAABAN A M, PROVENZANO E. Receptor status after neoadjuvant therapy of breast cancer: significance and implications[J]. Pathobiology, 2022, 89(5): 297-308. doi: 10.1159/000521880
    [3] RAMTEKE P, SEENU V, PRASHAD R, et al. Alteration in steroid hormone and Her-2/neu receptor status following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: experience at a tertiary care centre in India[J]. Indian J Cancer, 2016, 53(3): 366-371. doi: 10.4103/0019-509X.200669
    [4] TOLANEY S M, GOEL S, APPIAH A K, et al. Abemaciclib plus trastuzumab with or without fulvestrant versus trastuzumab plus standard-of-care chemotherapy in women with HR+, HER2+ advanced breast cancer: plain language summary of the monarcHER study[J]. Future Oncol, 2023, 19(35): 2341-2348. doi: 10.2217/fon-2023-0078
    [5] BOUGHEY J C, HOSKIN T L, GOETZ M P. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and nodal response rates in luminal breast cancer: effects of age and tumor Ki-67[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2022, 29(9): 5747-5756. doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-11871-z
    [6] SAJJADI E, VENETIS K, IVANOVA M, et al. Improving HER2 testing reproducibility in HER2-low breast cancer[J]. Cancer Drug Resist, 2022, 5(4): 882-888. doi: 10.20517/cdr.2022.29
    [7] 王辉, 张慧芳, 周金强, 等. Ki-67、P53及CA153与乳腺癌腋窝淋巴结转移的相关性研究[J]. 中华全科医学, 2019, 17(9): 1518-1520.

    WANG H, ZHANG H F, ZHOU J Q, et al. Study on the correlation between Ki-67, P53 and CA153 and axillary lymph node metastasis of breast cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of General Practice, 2019, 17(9): 1518-1520.
    [8] ONISHI N, LI W, NEWITT D C, et al. Breast MRI during neoadjuvant chemotherapy: lack of background parenchymal enhancement suppression and inferior treatment response[J]. Radiology, 2021, 301(2): 295-308. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021203645
    [9] BIDARD F C, KAKLAMANI V G, NEVEN P, et al. Elacestrant (oral selective estrogen receptor degrader) versus standard endocrine therapy for estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer: results from the randomized phase Ⅲ EMERALD Trial[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2022, 40(28): 3246-3256. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.00338
    [10] TARANTINO P, MORGANTI S, CURIGLIANO G. Biologic therapy for advanced breast cancer: recent advances and future directions[J]. Expert Opin Biol Ther, 2020, 20(9): 1009-1024. doi: 10.1080/14712598.2020.1752176
    [11] SCHETTINI F, PRAT A. Dissecting the biological heterogeneity of HER2-positive breast cancer[J]. Breast, 2021, 59: 339-350. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.07.019
    [12] HARBECK N, PENAULT-LLORCA F, CORTES J, et al. Breast cancer[J]. Nat Rev Dis Primers, 2019, 5(1): 66. doi: 10.1038/s41572-019-0111-2
    [13] JENSEN S G, THOMAS P E, CHRISTENSEN I J, et al. Evaluation of analytical accuracy of HER2 status in patients with breast cancer: comparison of HER2 GPA with HER2 IHC and HER2 FISH[J]. APMIS, 2020, 128(11): 573-582. doi: 10.1111/apm.13076
    [14] PATEL R, HOVSTADIUS M, KIER M W, et al. Correlation of the Ki-67 working group prognostic risk categories with the oncotype DX recurrence score in early breast cancer[J]. Cancer, 2022, 128(20): 3602-3609. doi: 10.1002/cncr.34426
    [15] KEPENEK F, KARAOǦLAN H, CAN C, et al. The role of basal metabolic and volumetric (18)F-FDG PET/CT parameters and their changes in predicting pathological complete response in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J]. Hell J Nucl Med, 2022, 25(3): 235-246.
    [16] 顾磊, 夏进东, 饶圣祥, 等. 乳腺癌磁共振表观扩散系数与Ki-67表达的相关性[J]. 中国临床医学, 2019, 26(6): 844-847.

    GU L, XIA J D, RAO S X, et al. Correlation between MRI apparent diffusion coefficient value and Ki-67 index in patients with breast cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2019, 26(6): 844-847.
    [17] AKDENIZ N, KÖMEK H, KÜÇÜKÖNER M, et al. The role of basal 18F-FDG PET/CT maximum standard uptake value and maximum standard uptake change in predicting pathological response in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J]. Nucl Med Commun, 2021, 42(3): 315-324. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001332
    [18] WONG S H, ZHAO L, ZHANG X, et al. Gavage of fecal samples from patients with colorectal cancer promotes intestinal carcinogenesis in germ-free and conventional mice[J]. Gastroenterology, 2017, 153(6): 1621-1633.e6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.08.022
  • 加载中
表(5)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  32
  • HTML全文浏览量:  9
  • PDF下载量:  3
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2024-02-06

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回